In any case.... how much of a deal is it to the Tibetan schools whether or not they would be considered to have their vows coming from the Dharmaguptaka line or the Mulasarvastivadin line?
Do people here think their status as fully ordained nuns would be respected? From the article I quoted above, the Karmapa seems to be saying that as the vows come mainly from the monks, even in the dual ordination, so they should be considered nuns in the Mulasarvastivadin line.
I'm not a scholar so I'm just going by the article.... and my respect for HHK of course.

I just wonder at how the leading layers of the other Tibetan schools are talking about this, obviously the Karmapa doesn't want discord between the schools. From the same article:

However, a number of great Tibetan masters of the past did fully ordain some of their female disciples. Such masters include no less authoritative a figure than the Eighth Karmapa, Je Mikyö Dorje, one of the greatest vinaya scholars in Tibetan history. In the end, these isolated instances of ordinations did not result in the formation of a bhikshuni order in Tibet. Nowadays, two major options have been considered in Tibetan monastic circles. One is ordination by a bhikshu sangha alone, which would consist of monks from the Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition. Another is what is known as “dual sangha ordination,’” in which the sangha of Tibetan bhikshus conferring the ordination would be joined by a bhikshuni sangha from a separate vinaya lineage, the Dharmagupta lineage preserved in Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism.

While the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje and other great masters in Tibet held bhikshuni ordinations using this first option—a bhikshu sangha alone—such a method was not universally accepted among Tibetan Buddhist schools. “Although perhaps in the vinaya we can find sources for ordination by the bhikshu sangha alone, this is something disputed and controversial,” His Holiness said. “I do not want to make more controversy, because nowadays Tibetan Buddhism is all together in exile, and if one lineage acts on its own, for example, if I give the ordination in our school alone, then other schools may be uncomfortable with that, and that is not good. But there are other ways and methods available to do so.”

“To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

tellyontellyon wrote:In any case.... how much of a deal is it to the Tibetan schools whether or not they would be considered to have their vows coming from the Dharmaguptaka line or the Mulasarvastivadin line?

It depends on the school.

Do people here think their status as fully ordained nuns would be respected? From the article I quoted above, the Karmapa seems to be saying that as the vows come mainly from the monks, even in the dual ordination, so they should be considered nuns in the Mulasarvastivadin line.

I think their vows will be respected, but I am not really sure they can be considered Mulasarvastivada Bhikṣunis. But, the Karmapa can do as he sees fit.

I think it nevertheless will be considered controversial. But controversy never prevented anyone from doing anything in Tibetan Buddhism.

tellyontellyon wrote:I'm no scholar, so I don't understand the importance of whether they will be considered as Mulasarvastivada Bhikṣunis by other schools. What is the significance of this? Why does it matter?

Are we likely to see ordination of nuns in this format taken up by the other schools?

As to the first point, as far as I know, these mixed Sangha ordinations are in themselves somewhat controversial to begin with.

tellyontellyon wrote:In any case.... how much of a deal is it to the Tibetan schools whether or not they would be considered to have their vows coming from the Dharmaguptaka line or the Mulasarvastivadin line?
Do people here think their status as fully ordained nuns would be respected? From the article I quoted above, the Karmapa seems to be saying that as the vows come mainly from the monks, even in the dual ordination, so they should be considered nuns in the Mulasarvastivadin line.
I'm not a scholar so I'm just going by the article.... and my respect for HHK of course.

I just wonder at how the leading layers of the other Tibetan schools are talking about this, obviously the Karmapa doesn't want discord between the schools. From the same article:

However, a number of great Tibetan masters of the past did fully ordain some of their female disciples. Such masters include no less authoritative a figure than the Eighth Karmapa, Je Mikyö Dorje, one of the greatest vinaya scholars in Tibetan history. In the end, these isolated instances of ordinations did not result in the formation of a bhikshuni order in Tibet. Nowadays, two major options have been considered in Tibetan monastic circles. One is ordination by a bhikshu sangha alone, which would consist of monks from the Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition. Another is what is known as “dual sangha ordination,’” in which the sangha of Tibetan bhikshus conferring the ordination would be joined by a bhikshuni sangha from a separate vinaya lineage, the Dharmagupta lineage preserved in Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism.

While the Eighth Karmapa Mikyö Dorje and other great masters in Tibet held bhikshuni ordinations using this first option—a bhikshu sangha alone—such a method was not universally accepted among Tibetan Buddhist schools. “Although perhaps in the vinaya we can find sources for ordination by the bhikshu sangha alone, this is something disputed and controversial,” His Holiness said. “I do not want to make more controversy, because nowadays Tibetan Buddhism is all together in exile, and if one lineage acts on its own, for example, if I give the ordination in our school alone, then other schools may be uncomfortable with that, and that is not good. But there are other ways and methods available to do so.”

Interesting. Within the Theravada tradition the revival of Bhikkhuni Ordination has been done based on the same grounds mentioned here. Although I think in the case of Theravada nuns there is less of a problem with the dual ordination method because the Theravada school and the Dharmaguptaka school descend from the same original group and never really had a clean break between them.

It's interesting that His Holiness the 8th Karmapa decided to have Monks preform the ordination because that is the same method that the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi encouraged as a way of reviving the Bhikkhuni Sanga. The basis for it is that in the Theravada Vinaya, when the Buddha established the form of Bhikkhuni ordination in which Bhikkhunis preform the ordination, he never actually rescinded the old form of ordination, whereas with every other time that the Buddha established a new form of ordination, he abolished the previous form, so presumably it would be possible to use the old form, at least if it were necessary.

I wonder if the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya records similar information which was the basis of the 8th Karmapa's decision.

I thought there already were some fully ordained Tibetan Buddhist nuns? Or perhaps this is a more officially accepted event?

If I remember correctly, those nuns were only conferred the shramanerika precepts in the Dharmagupta lineage as preparation for full ordination. There are individuals bhikshunis (all Western and East Asian as far as I know) who practice in the Tibetan tradition, but this would be the first institutional step towards establishing a bhikshuni sangha of Tibetan women.

According to a Chinese source preserved among the Dunhuang documents, however, one of the secondary wives of Emperor Tri Songdetsen, Queen Droza Jangdron (‘Bro-bza’ Byang-sgron), and thirty more women did receive bhikshuni ordination at Samye. Their ordination would have been conferred by the Chinese bhikshus who were invited to the translation bureau in Samye in 781 CE. Since the Chinese Tang Emperor Zhong-zong had decreed in 709 CE that only the Dharmagupta ordination lineage be followed in China, the bhikshuni ordination in Tibet must have been from the Dharmagupta lineage. Presumably, the ordination was given by the single sangha method and its lineage did not continue after the defeat of the Chinese faction at the Samye debate (792-794 CE) and its expulsion from Tibet.

The Mulasarvastivada bhikshu ordination lineage from Shantarakshita was almost lost with King Langdarma’s repression of Buddhism at the end of the ninth or beginning of the 10th century CE. Three surviving Mulasarvastivada bhikshus, with the help of two Chinese Dharmagupta bhikshus, revitalized this bhikshu ordination lineage with the ordination of Gongpa-rabsel (dGongs-pa rab-gsal) in Eastern Tibet. No similar procedure involving Dharmagupta bhikshunis, however, was followed for establishing the Mulasarvastivada bhikshuni ordination at that time through a mixed lineage dual sangha.

According to the Guge Chronicles, a Mulasarvastivada nun’s order was also established in Guge at this time, and King Yeshey-wo’s daughter, Lhai-metog (Lha’i me-tog), received ordination in it. However, it is unclear whether this ordination was as a bhikshuni or a shramanerika novice. In either case, it is also unclear whether Mulasarvastivada bhikshunis were invited to Guge to confer the ordination, and there is no evidence that a Mulasarvastivada bhikshuni sangha became firmly established in Western Tibet at this time.

In the centuries that have followed Shakyashribhadra’s visit, at least one attempt was made to establish the Mulasarvastivada bhikshuni ordination in Tibet, but it was unsuccessful. In the early 15th-century CE, the Sakya master Shakya-chogden (Sha-kya mchog-ldan) convened a single sangha Mulasarvastivada bhikshuni ordination specifically for his mother. Another contemporary Sakya master, Gorampa (Go-ram-pa bSod-nams seng-ge), however, strongly criticized the validity of this ordination and, subsequently, it was discontinued.